From: johnturmel@gmail.com   
      
   JCT: Judge Horne ordered submissions on costs from the   
   Plaintiffs and then the Crown Respondent. Only alim Manji   
   made submissions:   
      
   Alim Manji   
   930 Woodhaven Rd.   
   London, ON, N6H 4N5   
    519-495-7928   
   mrmanji@gmail.com   
      
   July 13 2022   
      
   Re: T-694-22 Submission as to costs   
      
   On July 4 2022, Case Management Judge Trent Horne ordered:   
      
       "2. The defendant shall serve and file submissions as to   
       costs within 10 days of the date of this order, not to   
       exceed 5 pages. Any responding submissions from the   
       plaintiffs as to costs shall be served and filed within   
       20 days of the date of this order, not to exceed 5   
       pages."   
      
   In previous actions where the Defendant requested a Lead   
   Plaintiff be appointed and the other actions be stayed, no   
   costs were awarded when the stayed actions were dismissed.   
      
   A) Filed in T-485-14: :   
           In the matter of numerous filings seeking a   
        declaration pursuant to s. 52 (1) of the Canadian   
         Charter of Rights and Freedoms ("The Charter");   
                               and   
           In the matter of numerous motions requesting   
           interim or interlocutory relief pursuant to   
         s. 24(1) of The Charter with regards to changes   
           to the Marihuana Medical Access Regulations   
              ("MMAR") and the Marihuana for Medical   
                  Purposes Regulations ("MMPR".)   
      
   On Jan 11 2017, the Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan dismissed   
   with no costs the actions of almost 400 self-represented   
   plaintiffs seeking the return of their cancelled medpot   
   permits.   
      
   In 2018, in the actions  of almost 400 self-represented   
   plaintiffs seeking damages due to delay in processing their   
   permits, Judge Brown offered the stayed actions the option   
   of waiting for the Lead Plaintiff to finish his appeals and   
   face $150 costs or let their actions be dismissed with no   
   costs. Only Steve Vetricek T-1372-18 chose to risk the costs   
   while the other stayed actions were dismissed with no costs.   
   The Mozajko appeal is still pending at the Supreme Court.   
      
   On Ap4 11   2022, in the actions of 55 self-represented   
   high-dosage plaintiffs challenging the 150-gram cap on   
   public possession, once the Lead Plaintiff's appeals were   
   dismissed, Judge Brown offered the others the chance to face   
   $150 costs to opposed dismissal or have their stayed actions   
   dismissed with no costs. The action of Arthur Jackes T-1784-   
   18 and all the other stayed actions were dismissed with no   
   costs.   
      
   In all previous cases where the stayed actions were   
   dismissed, the Crown was awarded no costs for doing nothing.   
      
   Here again, the Crown has not had to file any documentation   
   to deal with the stayed actions and has already been awarded   
   costs from the Lead Plaintiff.   
      
   Plaintiff herein would hope that as in previous precedents   
   for dismissing stayed actions, no costs would be awarded.   
      
   I would further ask for a Direction allowing me to file a   
   "sur-reply" in case the Defendant raises issues in Response   
   that I have not addressed herein.   
      
      
   Alim Manji   
   Cc: benjamin.wong2@justice.fc.ca   
      
      
   JCT: The Crown then made their submissions:   
      
   CR: Canada requests costs of $250 in each of these matters.   
   The Plaintiffs' claims are based on a "kit" Statement of   
   Claim  accessed from the website of John Turmel. The Federal   
   Courts have consistently dismissed these types of claims -   
   including a group of prior challenges to the very same   
   federal COVID-19 mitigation measures   
      
   JCT: That's not true. The first challenge was to "any"   
   restriction and dismissed because there was no specific   
   restriction. This one is about the Air Travel restriction,   
   not "the very same measure, is it?   
      
   CR: - on the grounds that facts pleaded concerning each   
   plaintiff's personal circumstances were insufficient to   
   disclose a reasonable cause of caution.1   
   1 In the matter of numerous filings, 2017 FC 30, paras 37-   
   38; Order of Zinn J., dated in August 17, 2018, in Hathaway   
   v HMQ (T-983-16); Order of Aalto, Proth., dated October 11,   
   2016 in several files including MacDonald v HMQ (T-1113-16);   
   Harris v HMQ, 2019 FCA 232, paras 6, 19-20, 23; Order of   
   Brown J, dated April 27, 2020, in several files including   
   McCluskey v HMQ (T-2126-18); Harris v HMQ, 2020 FCA 124,   
   paras 26, 30-38, 41-42, leave refused [2021] SCCA No 228;   
   Turmel v HMQ, 2021 FC 1095, paras 4-5, 15-23 (appeal   
   pending)   
      
      
      Despite these decisions, the plaintiffs filed the present   
   claims which suffered from the same fundamental defects.   
      
   JCT: No, they did not suffer the same fundamental defect of   
   not citing a specific restriction to complain about. Now we   
   waited for the air travel ban.   
      
   CR: A cost consequence is reasonable in this circumstance   
   given that the plaintiffs embarked on litigation with   
   Statements of Claim they found online that they either knew,   
   or should have known, were deficient.   
      
   JCT: There is no reason to think that a challenge to the   
   specific  air travel ban is the same challenge deficient of   
   a specific restriction!   
      
   CR: Canada also notes that the "kit" claim on which the   
   Plaintiffs relied continues to be promoted and is available   
   online  on  Mr. Turmel's website, and submits that an award   
   of costs in these circumstances would serve as a deterrent   
   to the continued promotion and filing of these claims. For   
   these reasons, costs of $250 would be appropriate.   
      
      
   JCT: Maybe if the first challenge were against the air   
   travel ban and then this one too would be an abuse, but this   
   one against the air travel ban and first not against the air   
   travel ban is not an abuse.   
      
   Sincerely,   
   James Schneider   
   Counsel   
      
   JCT:  So Benjamin Wong is gone and they got a newbie to   
   steer the judge wrong by stating this challenge is an abuse   
   because it is the very same as the first challenge.   
      
   Aren't we glad Alim asked for the right for a " Sur-Reply"   
   so we can make sure the judge is aware that the errors the   
   Crown is hoping he falls for.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)